About Rationally Speaking

Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Chomsky the anarcho-libertarian

I don't know what you think of Noam Chomsky, but you probably do have an opinion, or should. He is by some reckoning (for example by the New York Times) the most influential intellectual alive. I have read one of Chomsky's works, Manufacturing Consent (co-authored by Edward Herman), and of course I was aware of his theory of an innate grammar that allows human beings to learn languages during the early stages of their development. One of the things that always endeared Chomsky to me was his thorough debunking of Skinnerian behaviorism, which opened the way to modern cognitive science.

But I had never seen Chomsky in action, a lacuna that was remedied at least partially during the last couple of days, when I watched the documentary “Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media.” I'm not easily given to hero-worship, and in fact I'm pretty sure that Chomsky himself would be horrified at the prospect, but I must admit that I quickly adopted a new role model for my own modest forays into public intellectualism.

It isn't that I agree with everything Chomsky says. I find his political positions admirable, but it seems to me that he simply doesn't take into sufficient account the nature of being human (ironic, from someone whose main academic mark is an innate theory of language). I don't even necessarily agree with all his political positions (although I would defend freedom of speech regardless of whose speech is to be defended, his entanglement with the Faurisson affair and Holocaust denial was, I think, a bit naïve).

Nonetheless, Chomsky indubitably has the conviction of his ideas (he was arrested several times during the Vietnam era protests), does the hard work of researching what he says, is capable of brilliantly articulating his visions, and maintains an incredibly calm demeanor whenever challenged in public. If that's not the exact picture of what a public intellectual should be, I don't know what is.

Chomsky has almost single-handedly made the American public (or at least, the portion who cares to listen) aware of the genocide perpetrated in East Timor beginning in the mid-1970s, at the direct hands of the Indonesian government and with full support (including the shipment of weapons) of the US government. Moreover, Chomsky sharply exposed the hypocrisy of both the American government and media in decrying the genocide perpetrated by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, while being respectively complicit in and utterly silent about the parallel events that were unfolding in East Timor. It isn't that Chomsky was condoning Pol Pot, it is that he was pointing out what every thinking person ought to know by now: the US government talks the talk of democracy at home and abroad, but walks a path perilously close to fascism and colonialism whenever it can get away with it.

Indeed, in the documentary, Chomsky makes the very apt parallel between the US and that ancient world paragon of democracy: Athens. Yes, Athenian society was by far the most open society in the world at the time, but it was plagued by both internal injustice (slavery, lack of women rights) and external aggressiveness (culminating in the disastrous Peloponnesian war against Sparta). Similarly, the United States is, relatively speaking, a great place to live today (though several European nations actually do better by a variety of civil libertarian standards), but it is still plagued by injustice (poverty, limited gay rights) and perennially involved in warfare (the history of the United States is characterized by a remarkable sequence of external aggressions, which rarely – if ever – resulted in “spreading democracy” abroad).

In the documentary, Chomsky says that what needs to be done is to provide people with “a course in intellectual self-defense.” In our society people are isolated from each other, getting their news from a small number of media outlets increasingly controlled by an even smaller number of international corporations, an ideal ground for apathy and social stagnation. Which, of course, is exactly the way the powers that be want it (Chomsky has been accused of being a conspiracy theorist, but it seems to me that one doesn't need to imagine actual meetings in dark smoky rooms to realize what the concentration of economic and informational power is doing to our society). What is required is for people to get out, join organizations, read alternative media, and most importantly discuss things – all part of building intellectual self-defense tools. Enlightenment comes from confronting ideas with others, engaging in a continuous feedback (as David Hume put it, “truth springs from argument amongst friends”). As Chomsky says, “sure, the other stuff [meaning information not filtered by the major media] is there, but you have to find it,” and it is unreasonable to ask everyone to go home after a long day at work and suddenly turn into investigative reporters attempting to figure out how things really are.

As I said, I'm not sure I'm prepared to go all the way with Chomsky as far as his view of what a good society would be like. I guess I'm a bit too timid to embrace his idea of “social libertarianism,” or “anarcho-syndicalism,” but the documentary I saw was the first time the word “libertarian” didn't prompt me to reach for the gun that I don't own. And that's saying a lot.

I'll give Chomsky the last word: “In this possibly terminal phase of human existence, democracy and freedom are more than just ideals to be valued - they may be essential to survival.”

40 comments:

There would be no problem whatsoever with his views, or yours for that matter, except for the inconvenient truth that it is the three larger economically stable democracies in the world which provide most of the employment and medicine to the rest of the world.

Unfortunately, I must respectively disagree with Prof. Pigliucci relative to Prof Chomsky. In my estimation, Prof.Chomsky is a man who hates his own country with a passion. In Chomskys' fantasy world, the United States of America is the evil empire with nefarious designs on the rest of the world. It is well known that Prof. Chomsky is also a vociferous critic of the State of Israel who denies the legitimacy of that country. It is my view that this antipathy for Israel is really a reflection of his hatred for the USA; thus US supports Israel, US bad, therefore Israel bad. I have attached a link to an article of a long time adversary of Prof. Chomsky, namely Prof. Alan Dershowitz who, I think makes the case against Prof. Chomsky. This article will not, of course convince the admirers of Prof. Chomsky who consider Prof Dershowitz to be a shill for the Zionist but I'm posting it anyway.

I find it much too facile to refer to Chomsky's involvement with Robert Faurisson "naîve"-- Chomsky is an academic and thus understands that academic disciplines in general require that certain rules of evidence be followed. Faurisson came under criticism not just for his neo-Fascist and anti-Semitic politics, but because he was violating the rules of evidence of the historical sciences in order to justify his claims-- and this is the brunt of the criticism that Faurisson and Chomsky received from their fellow academics. Chomsky wasn't just defending Faurisson's freedom of expression, but Faurisson's freedom to dissimulate his findings-- which is in itself an attack on Enlightenment rationality that Chomsky claims to champion.

I do think Chomsky is largely wrong in his political outlook - he doesn't seem to understand economics and therefore capitalism. And while consent is doubtless manufactured, it has always been thus, and it is probably less "manufactured" in western democracies than it has ever been anywhere in the world.

And that support for a position is "manufactured" doesn't make that position wrong.

But I am surprised, SLC, how many opponents of Chomsky, rather than making arguments against his politics, go on about how much he hates his country. What is this? Why should I care what you think he feels? Nobody else knows what he really feels anyway. Why not argue against his politics instead? Surely that's the point at issue.

1. Prof. Chomskys' hatred for his own country is amply demonstrated by his support for any country and regime with which it is in dispute, no matter the odiousness of that regime (case in point, Pol Pots' Cambodia).

2. Prof. Chomskys' disdain for his own country is the reason for many of, what Mr. Joe otten admits, are his rather childish political and economic views. In the fantasy world of Prof. Chomsky, since the United States is the apotheosis of evil in the world, its political and economic systems must also be evil. This attitude dovetails nicely with his views on the State of Israel. I have no doubt that if the US was antagonistic towards Israel, Prof. Chomsky would thing that the latter was one of the good guys.

(Chomsky has been accused of being a conspiracy theorist, but it seems to me that one doesn't need to imagine actual meetings in dark smoky rooms to realize what the concentration of economic and informational power is doing to our society).

Chomsky's criticism (of the press and gov't) is similar to what C.S. Mills wrote in The Power Elite. It is indeed not a conspiracy theory ... its a sociological theory.

the history of the United States is characterized by a remarkable sequence of external aggressions, which rarely – if ever – resulted in “spreading democracy” abroad)...

The word "remarkable" makes this otherwise factual statement come across as slanted.

Yes, the U.S. has been involved in a sequence of external aggressions. But so has every powerful nation state since the beginning of recorded history. There is nothing "remarkable" about it. The only thing that makes our recent history stand out is that post WWII, the U.S. is nearly alone as a global power.

For a thousand years, European powers were in a state of nearly constant warfare around the globe, either with each other or with various local populations.

The same can be said of the empires, nation states and tribes in Asia and Africa. And before the Europeans reached the America's, the local native populations too were involved in regular warfare and aggressions.

The issue that I have is that statements like these take the unfortunate globally human traits of jingoism, nationalism and violence and implies that it is a sole feature of American history or, for some, Western history.

Chomsky does this type of thing frequently in the little that I have read of him directly. The bulk of his observations are factual, but he is decidedly asymmetrical in his criticisms and often implies an evil conspiracy when in fact much of the "evil" is an unfortunate emergent property of large scale human social and political behavior.

That said, he often makes some excellent observations. I try to be in the habit of judging each statement someone makes on its own factual merit and I try not to put too much emphasis on who it is that said (other than using that fact as a potential gauge of bias).

what I meant when I said that Chomsky's ideas about what a good society should look like don't take into account human nature is that we have a strong propensity for hierarchies -- a legacy of our ancestry as social primates.

Moreover, also because we are social yet sentient (say, unlike ants) animals, our instincts constantly struggle with finding a mid-way between selfish and group interests.

Both these tendencies will make it very difficult, if not impossible, to build an anarchic or libertarian society, just as they have made it obviously impossible to build a communist one.

That said, I think Chomsky is right on target when he criticizes the capitalist end of the spectrum -- especially as implemented in the US -- as far too unethical to be acceptable.

And, people, give me a break with this "he hates is country" bullshit, will ya?

After reading the comments, it seems as though some critics of Chomsky are attempting to attribute ideas and arguments I don't think he makes. Here, I will focus on SLC's comments.

"In my estimation, Prof.Chomsky is a man who hates his own country with a passion."

This is the tired and typical straw man attack against Chomsky and other's criticisms of U.S. policies and institutions. It does not answer Chomsky's well documented work of what U.S. policies actually do in other countries.

"Prof. Chomsky is also a vociferous critic of the State of Israel who denies the legitimacy of that country."

Lets take a step back and ask why Chomsky is a critic of Israel. It is founded on preferential political rights for a religious/ethnic group. It forcibly removed the native population of the land that is now Israel. It occupies other lands and systematically denies those peoples who are not of the priveledged ethnic/religious many of their basic human rights. etc. etc.

"In the fantasy world of Prof. Chomsky, since the United States is the apotheosis of evil in the world, its political and economic systems must also be evil."

And show me where Chomsky actually makes a claim such as this? Again, this is just a poisoning of the well. You have been drinking far to much right wing Kool-Aid.

First, what is the "United States"? When Chomsky is critiquing U.S. policies and institutions he is referring to specific sectors of corporate and govermental elites, what they actually do, and the consequences of those actions. He is not referring to the U.S. population in general, nor is he calling anybody "evil".

Chomsky does make arguments and criticisms of the U.S. political and economic system. He does this by referring to specific problems and consequences of these systems.

As far as I know, Chomsky does not come to the overly simplistic conclusion "that the U.S. is evil" that SLC attributes to him.

In precisely what way does he not understand economics and capitalism? From my reading of Chomsky he argues that at least some capitalism is a system that is often sustained by force and government intervention. I think he backs this claim with reference to empirical data.

This of course is in contradistinction to a classical liberal theory of capitalism. So the question is, which theory is more supported by the empiro-historical record? I argue Chomsky's theory is.

Modern day pro-capitalist ideologues often turn a blind eye to the negative consequences of actually existing capitalism.

"And while consent is doubtless manufactured, it has always been thus, and it is probably less "manufactured" in western democracies than it has ever been anywhere in the world."

That all sociopolitical systems are sustained by some form of ideology should be a given. But I don't think you are actually confronting Chomsky's argument, presuming you are even familiar with it. See the pasted quote below.

"And that support for a position is "manufactured" doesn't make that position wrong."

And that is just the point. Chomsky argues that the American people are often mislead by a set of ideological premises that can be demonstrated to be false.

"The beauty of the democratic systems of thought control, as contrasted with their clumsy totalitarian counterparts, is that they operate by subtly establishing on a voluntary basis--aided by the force of nationalism and media control by substantial interests--presuppositions that set the limits of debate, rather than by imposing beliefs with a bludgeon...... Those who do not accept the fundamental principles of state propaganda are simply excluded from the debate (or if noticed, dismissed as "emotional," "irresponsible," etc.)." Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman

I don't belong to any sociopolitical ism (at least not yet). But, pride oneself upon the aggressive capitalism that keeping alive in U.S. is not recognize its role in the pauperization of both, sociocultural and economic life of the rest of the world.

You don´t ask me, I´m sorry, But You should to travel (at least by means of alternative media) across the "third world" to see what I try to said Cal.

Massimo, Thanks for the clarifications. And sorry to over-post on this thread.

"Moreover, also because we are social yet sentient (say, unlike ants) animals, our instincts constantly struggle with finding a mid-way between selfish and group interests."

I am glad you put it that way, acknowledging the tension between our social/collective natures and our individual/selfish natures. All too often people overly emphasize the individual/selfish end of our human nature.

I do think Chomsky has much more nuanced ideas about the possible and the probable forms that human societies can take. Yes, he has his ideal vision of the near stateless libertarian socialist/anarcho-syndicalist society. Whether he actually believes that type of society can be put into practice, and whether it is possible or probable is another question. I think we should give him credit that he knows the obstacles of actually realizing such a society.

His more pragmatic political statements seem to argue that people should at least work for a more democratic and egalitarian society, regardless of the impossibility of a utopian ideal.

And to anticipate the obvious objections from the right. To argue that a society such as the U.S. should be more egalitarian, is not to neccessarily argue for some kind of complete and absolute economic equality.

Have been to and worked in some very poor places in the world. The Indians in Mexico, for instance, are not impoverished because of anything particularly capitalistic or American. As a matter of fact, they are not even impoverished because of the Mexicans "pushing them further back", as it has been said, into the mountains. Their way of life is actually more or less a choice. If you had ever lived or worked amongst them, you would understand.

Similarly, I can't think of a single country that has directly became poor because of some action that the the USA has taken. If there has been a war that we happened to take part in, there was already a great amount of turmoil on within the country's borders before the US troops arrived. The majority of the time, the impoverishment that one may tend to observe has something to do (first and foremost) with a cultural mindset. Nevertheless I must also point out that it is a glaring example of elitism to think that native people would not be able to make meaningful decisions about their existence if they did happen to choose to live a more primitive life.

"Primitive" does not necessarily mean "stupid", of course. And conversely, 'technologically savvy' and educated does not necessarily mean that one is particularly "smart".

1. Mr. Sheldon fails to come to grips with the fact that Prof. Chomsky supports any and all regimes which are at odds with the US, no matter how repulsive. Case in point, Pol Pots' Cambodia. If this isn't evidence of his disdain for the US, I don't know what is.

2. Mr. Shelton makes reference to Arab refugees who fled the fighting which ensued shortly after the State of Israel was declared. Unfortunately, he forgot to mention the equal number of Jews who fled Arab countries such as Iraq, but of course, being Jews, they don't count in the lexicon of Israel bashers like Mr. Sheldon.

3. Mr. Sheldon makes reference to the inferior status of Arabs currently living in Israel. The fact of the matter is that these Arabs have greater freedom then Arabs elsewhere in the Arab world. This is not a compliment to Israel, it's a sad commentary on the state of affairs in the Arab world.

4. Mr. Sheldons' claims that the State of Israel forcibly removed Arabs from what became Israel, presumably during the 1948 war. There is a modicum of truth to this assertion. However, the fact of the matter is that most of the Arab refugees who fled did so to escape the fighting that was going on around them. People who make this claim conveniently forget that there are currently some 1 million Arabs living in Israel.

"The beauty of the democratic systems of thought control, as contrasted with their clumsy totalitarian counterparts, is that they operate by subtly establishing on a voluntary basis--aided by the force of nationalism and media control by substantial interests--presuppositions that set the limits of debate, rather than by imposing beliefs with a bludgeon...... Those who do not accept the fundamental principles of state propaganda are simply excluded from the debate (or if noticed, dismissed as "emotional," "irresponsible," etc.)." Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman

This quote goes to what I was trying to convey in an above comment.

The above quote, while essentially conveying a correct observation, nonetheless is framed in a manner which I find to be mildly inflammatory. Maybe I'm just being hyper-sensitive, but to me it comes across as though Chomsky suggests there is some secret cabal orchestrating "thought control" in democracies. His reference to totalitarian thought control being clumsy seems to be a backhanded way of suggesting that thought control in a democracy is somehow more insidious.

The thought control he describes does exist, but it is merely a result of the dynamics of a free society. Precisely because the people in a democracy are (mostly) free, they will associate in infinite ways and many interest groups will arise around any number of ideas and ideologies. Many of these groups will, of course, try to influence the greater populace for their benefit. Those that are more successful will be able to more loudly and convincingly do so. Of course pandering to nationalism and ignorance helps in this process. But there is no "state propaganda" in the pejorative way that phrase is typically used. The propaganda comes from people themselves, the fundamental principles or national myths are simply the most popular synthesized views over time. It works because the masses are not overly educated and as Jefferson warned the preservation of our state of liberty is dependent on the education of the people.

Nevertheless the alternative viewpoints are there for anyone interested in finding them. This differs greatly from totalitarian states who willfully destroy any alternative viewpoints by enforcing censorship of all forms of media and by imprisoning dissidents. Even the worst, most dangerous administration in our history has not even come close to that.

The fact that Noam Chomsky is so relatively well known defeats his own argument to some extent. Again, I am not disagreeing with the truth in the statement, but I consistently feel as though he frames the arguments in an inflammatory way. Could just be me.

Finally, I don't see how thought control wouldn't be as bad or worse in some sort of anarchist state where the marketplace of ideas would be just as dominated by those groups able to obtain whatever means of power was available. I see this state descending to a tribal, feudal dynamic such as exists in the "lawless" regions of Pakistan.

I think Alan hit the nail on the head. Thanks. But also, in regards to this:

"In our society people are isolated from each other, getting their news from a small number of media outlets increasingly controlled by an even smaller number of international corporations, an ideal ground for apathy and social stagnation. Which, of course, is exactly the way the powers that be want it"

Isn't this a Cui Bono fallacy? Just because, say, Fox News benefits from a captive population of idiots doesn't mean that they caused people to be credulous and uncritical (though they certainly don't help the situation). And while media ownership has become more centralized, it has done so because of policy changes implemented by elected government, not a conspiracy to make the US populous more apathetic or purposefully deny them good reporting. I agree with Chomsky et al that much of the popular press is appalling, but I think it's the readers, not the corporations, who are most at fault for not demanding a higher standard.

Also, can people stop labelling those who disagree with Chomsky as 'right-wingers'? There can be more than two sides to an issue.

"There would be no problem whatsoever with his views, or yours for that matter, except for the inconvenient truth that it is the three larger economically stable democracies in the world which provide most of the employment and medicine to the rest of the world."

First of all, what three democracies are you talking about? The US, Germany and France? Also you ignore the fact that the developed world doesn't just 'give' jobs to the poor. People in developing countries earn their incomes through their own work. That some portion of what they make (much less than most people think) is sold to countries like the US doesn't mean that we are benevolent benefactors. When poor countries succeed, they primarily have themselves to thank.

I’m from a “poor country” (however, one of the most rich in biodiversity and natural resources of the world). May be you have reason, however only in this way:1. The people of the government have been sold all to U.S and other developing countries.2. The government of my country hadn´t developed a political issue that permit an international commerce in the same conditions of equality and now we are of the vortex to firm an international treaty that in a future carry to despoil us even of our own water. Yes, only in this way my people are responsible. Besides Cal, I wonder of you, you work in México and you don’t aware of the nauseating name “Maquila” where doesn´t exist technology transference and the parasite country doesn´t buy source materials of the host country. Furthermore, the pay and conditions of work are horrible and subhuman. This is a little example, but what about south east of Asia and the most horrible high sea maquilas.Sorry Cal, but a natural born poor man doesn’t the responsibility of your own fate, at least in economic terms and doesn’t have the responsibility when an “alien” country undertake a colonialism (in this point I’m not flexible) war and rape (in all sense of the word) all his sociocultural past because increase its wealth. I’m convinced and work every day for a democratic society with all guaranties. But, I’m afraid of a socioeconomic system like this, which increases the more violent traits of our evolutionary past. I have a prediction that share in some sense with Chomsky, the rational speech among us (human beings) will triumph at just one point from then on our violent genes make the job if the aggressive pressure of developing countries doesn’t stop.

I: “Sorry Cal, but a natural born poor man doesn’t the responsibility of your own fate, at least in economic terms and doesn’t have the responsibility when an “alien” country undertake a colonialism (in this point I’m not flexible) war and rape (in all sense of the word) all his sociocultural past because increase its wealth. I’m convinced and work every day for a democratic society with all guaranties.”

I have to disagree, Icaro. Being poor, at times, is less of a disadvantage then essentially having the world at your beck and call. Poor people can be highly resourceful, where as the well-to-do have a very minimal need to be. And is that really such a thing to be sought after? Honestly, I don’t think so. My father and his brothers invented devices when they didn’t have some item or tool that they happened to need and he claims they were poor. Pitifully poor? No, not really. More like “big family” poor, I think. So the way you are thinking about this matter is largely to your disadvantage. If you buy the line that another party is responsible (governments, wealthy people, etc.) and that they keep you from making a mark on this world, the only one that is truly harmed by this is you. And you will perpetually stay under “their” feet. In reality, there is NOT ONE THING you cannot do if you set you mind to it and are determined to accomplish it. The ideas and beliefs that you have accepted about colonialism and class ware-fare are disabling to perfectly healthy, independent and intelligent people everywhere and are therefore, I think, total hogwash.

"...“Maquila” where doesn´t exist technology transference and the parasite country doesn´t buy source materials of the host country. Furthermore, the pay and conditions of work are horrible and subhuman."

I am not familiar with the term but I do understand what you mean by it. Do you realize that both persons on the right and left "pay" for those services or goods. Therefore this is not necessarily a "capitalist" issue because not everyone on the right or left who agrees to use these goods and services is a capitalist. Further, countries who have no interest in capitalism use goods and services from other poor countries also, and what would that make them exactly? More importantly, what job would that same economically disadvantaged person be doing if they, for instance, were not stitching up Nike tennis shoes or something of that nature?

Seriously. What sorts of jobs would replace the industrialized ones and how much would they pay?

It looks like I have several different comments to answer to. First Chris Muir,

"Also, can people stop labelling those who disagree with Chomsky as 'right-wingers'? There can be more than two sides to an issue."

I only said this in response to slc's repeating of the popular meme "he (she, they) hate America" which can be heard ad nauseum by Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Medved, etc. etc.. This handy little propaganda phrase cannot be considered an argument, but simply a dismissal. Indeed, some left-liberals disagree with Chomsky. Debates have figured very prominently in the journal Dissent in reference to Chomsky's analysis of the events in the former Yugoslavia for example.

Next slc,".....Prof. Chomsky supports any and all regimes which are at odds with the US, no matter how repulsive. Case in point, Pol Pots' Cambodia. If this isn't evidence of his disdain for the US, I don't know what is."

All that you claim is demonstatably false. This charge came first in response to his comparison of the treatment of the genocides in East Timor and Cambodia by the media and the U.S. government and mentioned in Massimo's original post. I read the original book "The Political Economy of Human Rights" and there is nothing in it in support of Pol-Pot. He does question whether the numbers in the Cambodian genocide were exagerrated by the media and U.S. govt.. This lead various detractors to conclude that he supported Pol Pot. Non sequitor and absurd, after all he did not argue that the events in question were not genocide.

As for supporting other "anti-U.S." regimes, Chomsky was clearly critical of the Soviet Union and sattelites. He was critical of Saddam Hussein, and of course pointed out the U.S.'s contribution to supporting Hussein's regime.

One can with good reason argue that he was supportive, not uncritically, of the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua. That goverment came to power through the overthrow of a U.S. supported dictator, Somoza. They held elections in 1984, won, and were voted out of power in 1989. During that time they implemented a land reform, literacy campaign, and health program for the poverty stricken population. All during that time the Reagan administration with media support claimed that the Sandinistas were a totalitarian regime. I know that to be false first hand as I spent a year there in 1987, and opposition parties and newspapers operated openly.

"....Unfortunately, he forgot to mention the equal number of Jews who fled Arab countries such as Iraq, but of course, being Jews, they don't count in the lexicon of Israel bashers like Mr. Sheldon."

Much irrelevant to the question at hand, and a personal attack. The subject was Israel and the nature of that regime. Contrary to your simplistic and binary mode of thinking, criticism of Israel does not neccessarily equate to hatred of Jews or that "Arab regimes good".

I certainly do recognize that most (all?) Arab regimes are authoritarian and gross violators of human rights. If you actually read enough Chomsky you would know that he criticizes those regimes, and the U.S. support of those regimes (i.e. Saudi Arabia, Egypt).

The fact that there are Arabs in Israel, and that they may be comparatively better off there than in Arab countries does not erase the fact they are not equal citzens in a "Jewish State". It does not erase the fact that Israel occupies remaining Palestinian lands denying those people basic political rights and inhibiting their social and economic development. Zionist Israel is committed to maintaining Jewish demographic superiority in the region, denying Palestinian refugess the right of return, against U.N. charters, and a racist policy. It is only in light of the very warranted world guilt over the holocaust that we would even consider the legitimacy of a state based on preferential status of a religious/ethnic group. But lets get our history straight, Arab Palestinians did not send Jews to the gas chambers of Auschvitz.

SLC, if you have an intellectually honest criticism of Chomsky, step forward and make an argument and back it up. I would be most interested in specific references to Chomsky stating support for Pol Pot, or "any and all regimes which are at odds with the US." Good luck, because they don't exist.

Also, I am due an apology for the innuendo that I am an anti-semite simply because I think Palestinians are also worthy of proper human treatment.

"Maybe I'm just being hyper-sensitive, but to me it comes across as though Chomsky suggests there is some secret cabal orchestrating "thought control" in democracies."

Alan,Again, I am really getting the idea that you are not addressing Chomsky's argument, and of course the quote I pasted perhaps does not summarize it well. First, he would deny vehemently that their is a "secret cabal orchestrating thought control".

Instead, the process is actually open and transparent. For example, journalist's rely on government sources, they have to protect access to those sources, and thus stay with in certain parameters in the questions they ask and the news that they cover.

"His reference to totalitarian thought control being clumsy seems to be a backhanded way of suggesting that thought control in a democracy is somehow more insidious."

Maybe not insidious, but more subtle.

"But there is no "state propaganda" in the pejorative way that phrase is typically used."

Correct! No direct state propaganda, because it is distributed by private media firms, that are owned by people with a vested interest in maintaining an acceptance of the basic systemic premises.

I was trying to write up my own post on Chomsky, but I'm feeling so lazy and having such a hard time focusing my attention that I either won't do it or will do a half-assed job of it, so I'll just drop this off here in the meanwhile.

This link is an interview Chomsky did with The Humanist about humanism and national secularism. Pretty interesting, especially the part where he says he considers Baron von Humholdt.

Both these tendencies will make it very difficult, if not impossible, to build an anarchic or libertarian society, just as they have made it obviously impossible to build a communist one.

Yes, unfortunately. Or not. Anyway, it was my little sister who introduced me to anarchism and the like. And I remember complaining that "human nature makes it impossible", so why bother at all. She replied it didn't matter that it was impossible, as long as people life with those ideals of freedom in mind and try to live by them. With time I think I understood that, in my own way.

It's all about the naturalistic fallacy. It's not because human nature is, well, natural, that it is good (or bad) or advisable (etc.). Human nature will always be there one way or the other, but that does not eliminate our ethical imperative to try to overcome it when needed, does it? If it does, I'm going out to buy a bunch of guns, impregnate as many women I can and live "darwinianly", because that's what nature tells me to do. No? Nature also tells me that cooperating with some people sometimes is advantageous, so I guess I'll do some of that too...

So, I strongly sympathize with anarchism and its ideals, but I know reality does not help. So what? Countries should not exist. But alas, they do, so we have to deal with that and make do as best as we can. Maybe, if everybody had in mind that those artificial lines on pieces of paper really do more evil than good, things would eventually get better, I believe. Same can be said for many other human problems, no?

j "Maybe, if everybody had in mind that those artificial lines on pieces of paper really do more evil than good, things would eventually get better, I believe. Same can be said for many other human problems, no?"

No.

Boundaries lines are not the real problem geographically or otherwise. The fact that people cannot live within a given set of standards is not in any way the fault of the notion that there are boundries or any particular code of conduct to have live by. Even if there were no religious or geographical distinctions to be made, one can be absolutely certain that people would find other discomforting issues in life that they might want to wish away.

I can only partially agree with your stance on the naturalistic fallacy.

To be sure there are situations where it applies very well. For example, when an employer institutes an harrassment policy in a workplace, you often hear the refrain "This is a male-dominated workplace, that's all there is to it." But the truth is that it all depends on the decisions of management and the individuals involved. It is only a male-dominated workplace, if we make it one. Employers all over the world are instituting harrassment policies that actually work, and they successfully overcome such obstacles.

On the other hand, to the extent that ethics is about making decisions, especially collective decisions, surely we should try to estimate the consequences. For example, can we successfully build a society where there is no marriage, or no possessions? What about planned economies? Have these things ever worked in the communities that tried them? If not, would it be a responsible ethical decision to try to implement such policies?

I agree that moral principles cannot be derived in a simplistic or prescriptive manner from the facts of human nature, but I don't think that's the end of the story. I think many of our decisions are at least informed by such facts. It seems to make a difference if our decisions can actually work out in practice.

"If it does, I'm going out to buy a bunch of guns, impregnate as many women I can and live "darwinianly", because that's what nature tells me to do."

First of all, Darwin never said anything like the above, only his misinformed popularizers (Spencer perhaps?). Secondly, there is no universal rule of animal behavior that says the most fit will always be the most violent and sexually active; in many cases it is quite the contrary. More importantly though, of course we should not try to make a society that is an exact mirror of human nature. Not only might it be undesirable, it would be impossible since there is no single human nature (humans, like all organisms, are diverse) and even if there was, it is not clear that we have a good idea of what constitutes it. That said, a society built as if human nature didn't exist would be equally disasterous. There is simply no way to make sure millions or billions of people will adhere to an ideal that runs against the grain of their instincts. To take advantage of any such system by cheating would be too tempting for some people to resist. Anarchist, libertarian, centrally planned, and other ideal societies are utopias that do more to distract from real world problems than they do to stimulate human progress.

1. Mr. Sheldon points out that Prof. Chomsky has criticized the Governments of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Of course he has. They are supported by the US and hence in the Chomskian world are automatically bad. Has he criticized the Government of Syria, which is not supported by the US? What has he said relative to the murder of 20,000 people in the City of Hama in 1982 by the Assad regime? Has he criticized the treatment of women by the regime in Iran? Not to my knowledge. But of course, Iran is opposed by the US.

2. Mr. Sheldon states that the ouster of Jews from the Arab countries is irrelevant to the discussion. Of course it's irrelevant. In the world of Mr. Sheldon, Jews don't count.

3. Mr. Sheldon criticizes the Government of Israel for "denying the right of return" to Palestinians currently living in refugee camps. I think that Israel should allow the resettlement of those refugees in what is now Israel on the day that the US allows the descendants of native Americans to reclaim their homes in places like New York City which were stolen from their ancestors. I think that Israel should allow the resettlement in what is now Israel on the day that the Czech Republic allows the descendants of the ethnic Germans ousted from the Sudetenland after the Second World War to return to their ancestral lands. I won't hold my breath waiting for any of these events to occur.

3. Mr. Sheldon states that the Arabs didn't send the Jews to the gas chambers during WW2. He forgets to mention the collaboration of the Mufti of Jerusalem with Hitler during that period.

4. Mr. Sheldon states that he is due an apology from me for implying that he is antisemitic. However, everything he has said in his comments on this thread indicates that, at the least, he considers the State of Israel to be an illegitimate, racist enterprise which should be dismantled (calling for the resettlement of Palestinian inhabitants of refugee camps is tantamount to calling for the dismantlement of the State of Israel). I have to state that I don't consider legitimate criticism of the actions of the Government of the State of Israel to constitute antisemitism. However, calling for the dismantlement of that state comes close to the line, if not over it. Therefore, I have no apology for Mr. Sheldon.

5. Mr. Sheldon admits to having spent a yare in Nicaragua during the Communist regime of the Sandinistas and states that they instituted a number of progressive policies. So did Castro in Cuba (by the way, another opponent of the US that Prof. Chomsky has been loath to criticize).

Of course Chomsky hates America. To criticize something is to hate it - at least if that something is America. Cf the GOP debate where not one of the candidates could think of a single thing wrong with the country - or at least not one of them was willing to admit that maybe there was something somewhere that needed to be fixed.

It's the dichotomy between the "my country right or wrong so love it or leave it" and the "my country right or wrong - when right to be kept right, when wrong to be put right" group; and the former is certainly allied to the "to explain is to support" group.

Responding to slc is apparently a waste of time. For him it is enough to dismiss my arguments because I spent a year in a so-called "communist" country, and that I question the legitimacy of a state based on a priveledged status for an ethic/religious group.

Again, it is quite evident that he hasn't even read Chomsky. Because Chomsky is a U.S. citizen, he focuses on the wrong doing of the U.S. government, so as to raise our awareness as democratic citizens.

"First of all, Darwin never said anything like the above, only his misinformed popularizers (Spencer perhaps?). Secondly, there is no universal rule of animal behavior that says the most fit will always be the most violent and sexually active; in many cases it is quite the contrary."

Mike,Since when is Darwinian theory restricted to what Darwin actually said? While there may be no universal rule of animal behavior, the attempt to copulate with as many females as possible is a male reproductive strategy documented among more than just a few primate species. Some might argue that it is even a human male reproductive strategy, and that it is cultural constraints that keeps the tendency in check. Thus, J's facetious point has its merits, and it is certainly in agreement with some Darwinian theory.

I am a little conflicted about this post as it is my first time on this blog but the following comment struck me as informed by popularized form of social evolutionism, which has long been discredited within the anthropological community.

Quote Massimo Pigliucci:

"What I meant when I said that Chomsky's ideas about what a good society should look like don't take into account human nature is that we have a strong propensity for hierarchies -- a legacy of our ancestry as social primates."

There is plenty of ethnographic information out there to suggest that this is not true. Not all societies or cultures order themselves hierarchically. One such example would include the research of Anthropologist David Graber demonstrated such organizations with the Tsimihety in Madagascar. There is even some archaeological evidence that the Indus Valley region was once home to a highly complex and heterarchical culture. Nor are all hierarchical societies completely hierarchical. There are many instances where heterarchy social organizations persist alongside hierarchical ones. One glaring example within our own culture is the Open-source movement and the Linux Operating system. These examples and others suggest to me that your conclusion that our primate ancestry in some way inclines us towards hierarchical social organizations is somewhat unfounded. Therefore, I see no reason to look to evolutionism to explain a propensity for hierarchical social organization, as there does not seem to be any such propensity. That said there is something to say about the dramatic increase in the socio-economic and political power of hierarchical social organizations. But there is no determinate, other than ideological, or propensity for hierarchical organizations inherent within human nature.

thanks for your comment. However, I don't think I was adopting an old-fashioned social darwinist approach to the problem. The fact that not _all_ human societies are hierarchical, even if true, does not invalidate the hypothesis that we have a natural tendency to organize ourselves hierarchically. Just in the same way in which the fact that I can resist sugar and fat when I go to the restaurant doesn't mean that I don't have a tendency to like them.

As for Linux and such, those are highly culturally derived situations, and even in those cases there often is a small group who is in charge as a gate keeper, if nothing else to avoid abuses.